Reagle's book is out, and the Berkman/WMF reviews are in Options

[thekohser]

try not to vomit.

"Joseph Reagle's account of what makes Wikipedia tick debunks the vision of a shining Alexandria gliding towards free and perfect knowledge and replaces it with something far more awe-inspiring: a humane, and human, enterprise that with each fitful back-and-forth elicits the best from those it draws in. In an era of polemic and cheap shots that some attribute largely to the Internet's influence, he shows how even those of wildly varying backgrounds who disagree intensely can see themselves as embarked on a common, ennobling mission grounded in respect and reason."
�Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Kennedy School, Professor of Computer Science, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and author of The Future of the Internet � And How to Stop It

"Good Faith Collaboration sheds some much needed light on one of the most influential resources available today. Joseph Reagle accurately captures the internal collaborative climate of 'good faith' in Wikipedia, and provides an excellent history of its progenitors like Nupedia."
�Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia deserves to have its story intelligently told, and Joseph Reagle has done exactly that. Good Faith Collaboration is smart, accessible, and astutely observed. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand how Wikipedia works, and why it matters."
�Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[Peter Damian]

Reagle also deleted the comment I made below, together with a further comment briefly noting the fact he had deleted it. He has persistently refused to engage with any reasonable argument against his point of view. I won't be commenting any further, the guy is clearly beyond any form of reason.

>>If there is a concern about quantitative attempts to characterize Wikipedian interaction, one naturally looks to the literature.

Of course, but that is not my complaint. My complaint was about your whole style (unfortunately common in the field of HCI - I should know, I have a master's in the subject). You make a citation out of context without explaining what the authors say, and without any pretence at analysis. As a matter of fact I went on to read the paper you mention ((Burke and Kraut 2008) use in "Mind your Ps and Qs: The impact of politeness and rudeness in online communities") and it is as I suspected almost entirely vacuous. It attempts to measure the impact of politeness and rudeness by the number of responses to comments. Of what use is that to the project of building an encyclopedia? The only impact that is of interest is whether it furthers the goal of achieving a comprehensive and reliable reference work. I don't see how their silly computer model will work on that. To do this you need metrics for 'comprehensive' and 'reliable', and you need a model that determines whether any set of interactions are furthering that goal.

>>But I have not set as my goal to participate in endless bickering

Then make a reasoned and considered reply to any of the substantive points that have been raised here. Kelly's, for example. She has made the reasonable point that you are confusing the norms that people pretend to follow on Wikipedia with the actual ones that are being followed. She has given examples, such as the military history project. I am familiar with this project, and with its successes and failures, and what she says is entirely accurate. Is she right? If not, why not? Give a coherent and well-argued and evidenced analysis, and please do not cite some vacuous and irrelevant paper out of context.
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[victim of censorship]

Reagle new theme song...





REAGLE, I SPIT ON YOU... you ask why???

Because, you enable an evil enterprise, with your lack of scholarship, honesty, and due diligence.

You book on Wikipedia is just some kind of "SHINE JOB" or "JUG OF KOOLAID quick mix". There is many documented accounts of the evil of Wikipedia, which you ignore that your book is a face of academic honesty.

In the end you just a coward to refuse to face peer review of you work among people who know the true farce of Wikipedia. You are an enabling of Wikipedia's crimes of stealing of peoples IP property, reputations and humanity.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: